Hellow guys, Welcome to my website, and you are watching Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hadid Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. and this vIdeo is uploaded by Quimbee at 2023-03-02T13:47:40-08:00. We are pramote this video only for entertainment and educational perpose only. So, I hop you like our website.
| Name | Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hadid Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained |
| Video Uploader | Video From Quimbee |
| Upload Date | This Video Uploaded At 02-03-2023 21:47:40 |
| Video Discription | Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hadid | 947 F.2d 1153 (1991) Lending agreements, like all contracts, are subject to contract law. A bank lent a tidy sum of money but found itself in a messy contracts case over an alleged oral agreement in Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation versus Hadid. The National Bank of Washington loaned money to two of P. S. Prasad’s companies. When Prasad couldn’t make payments, Mohamed Hadid agreed to make payments. Hadid and the bankers were businessmen who used attorneys to draft detailed contracts. One contract stated the bank would continue to hold a stock interest. Both stated that, if the bank needed to sue for nonpayment, it was entitled to fifteen percent of the amount owed as an attorney’s fee. No one made loan payments. The bank sued Hadid. Hadid claimed he had an oral agreement with the bank that required the bank to release stock to him. Under the agreement, if the bank didn’t release the stock, Hadid wasn’t responsible for payments. Before and during trial, the bank filed motions to eliminate Hadid’s ability to present evidence about his claim of an oral agreement. The court let the jury hear the evidence of the oral agreement. The jury returned a verdict for Hadid, and the bank moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court granted the motion, reasoning that, as a matter of law, the written agreement was complete, so Hadid’s conflicting testimony about an oral agreement couldn’t be used in the case. Over Hadid’s objection, the court awarded fifteen percent of the amount owed on the loan as the attorney’s fee even though the bank amassed less than half that amount in fees. The bank became insolvent, so the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took over the bank’s claim. The corporation appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/federal-deposit-insurance-corp-v-hadid The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/federal-deposit-insurance-corp-v-hadid Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries |
| Category | Education |
| Tags | Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Hadid | briefs | quimbee | law case | case brief example | brief case | case brief | press brief | case summaries | legal brief | how to brief a case | legal brief case | legal brief example | case brief format | law briefs | legal brief definition | what is a brief in law | what is a case brief | court brief | brief definition law | facts of the case | student case brief example | case law study | case brief outline | legal case analysis example | facts in issue |
